[Editor’s note: To participate in future queries, keep an eye on our Twitter and Facebook accounts.]
The Constitution allows for Supreme Court justices to be appointed for life, unlike the heads of the other two branches of government.
So, we wanted to know: "Should Supreme Court justices have term limits instead of being appointed for life? Why or why not?"
“Appointment for life helps to maintain some semblance of independent judiciary.” — Jim Miller
“No. The Supreme Court is the highest federal court in the land and arguably the most important branch of government. A justice is appointed upon a massive foundation of constitutional knowledge and integrity. I believe a term limit for justices would expose them to corruption. Think of how easily a justice could be thrown out if he made an unpopular ruling. ... A term limit would also spark the problem that justices would have to keep people happy in order to remain in power, thus putting a justices integrity in question. Think about Congress. Most incumbents don't have the nerve to do the right thing. They just want to remain in office.” — Nathan Dunn
“No.” — Randy M. Obenchain
“Well, it sounds like an OK idea, especially if they're less sharp toward the end, but it will ratchet up the political fighting over them significantly if we have nominations come around more frequently.” — Pedro Velazco
“I am kind of just in the middle on this topic. With term limits it would be nice to get some new voices and different opinions in on certain topics. On the other hand, with being appointed for life what you get is what you get and there is no hassle with trying to figure out who is going to be making those important decisions.” — Jordan Cleckley
“It’s an interesting thought experiment. It might be a worthwhile idea to try, but which administration would want to be the first one to appoint a justice for a term instead of for life?” — Rob Burgess